Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-17-Speech-1-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011217.3.1-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Mr President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Socialist Group, I would firstly like to welcome the decision taken at the European summit in Laeken. You have decided to cross the Rubicon by acknowledging that we are in the process of creating a constitution and that is a fundamental change which demonstrates that political alternation can generate new ideas and new proposals in Belgium as well. I congratulate the Belgian Presidency on the perseverance it has shown in taking this step.
Finally, Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe we must state here today that the Laeken declaration, which sets the objective of creating a European constitution, must be the beginning of a process and a momentum to which we must all be committed. On behalf of my group, I can say that we are united and determined to cross the Rubicon with you, if we do so seriously and with a view to the future, for the sake of a united Europe.
And furthermore, thanks to the efforts we have all made together, I believe that we have managed to make progress with the Convention, despite the significant reservations we had about it. I believe that each and every one of us can take credit for the Convention.
Mr Poettering pointed out that the Convention was born under the German Presidency, at the Cologne Summit, but he forgot to mention that it was a Social Democrat/Green Presidency. I believe that the joint efforts of all the European political forces are characterising this process, and this is reflected in the Lehne/Méndez de Vigo report. I would like to acknowledge that our proposals have been heard; firstly, with regard to the membership of the praesidium, or Bureau, there is parliamentary representation which is balanced, in terms of democratic legitimacy, with that of the Council – we must not forget this – and a solution has been found – I would say a Belgian solution – in the triumvirate they have created as well as the praesidium.
With regard to that praesidium, I must say that I have a high regard for Mr Giscard d'Estaing’s European credentials; he was not our candidate, but, as well as President of France, he was also a good Member of the European Parliament, and I believe that what we must ask at this point, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, is that we do not create a body separate from the praesidium, that is to say that we do not create a directorate of three set apart from the praesidium. There must be a team of twelve that works together and that is the way to make progress.
We can all say that things have gone better for our friends, but what I do not understand, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, is why Mr Poettering, who is also my good friend, is determined to say that being liberal is a sort of apprenticeship for becoming a Christian Democrat. I do not believe that Mr Cox is very happy with that view. In any event, the important thing is that we are all prepared to work together in this process.
You have done something which I believe to be positive, and that is that with regard to the four issues raised in Nice, in Annex IV, Declaration 23, you have posed 64 questions. We have done our calculations and we make it 64. Some will be million euro – rather than dollar – questions. There are some questions on relations between national and European parliaments which I do not believe are very well worded, but we will help you to correct them and, above all, the important thing is that a constructive momentum is being created for the Convention, which is something my group has been working for for some time. We have seen this in the COSAC, and we are doing it as a political family so that there may be increasingly significant coordination between groups in Member States’ parliaments, in the parliaments of the candidate countries, which also have the right to express their opinion on what we are doing, and in our Parliament. We have a great responsibility.
Otherwise, please allow me to make certain criticisms in relation to Laeken. Progress has been made in terms of making the common foreign and security policy operative, and certain defence elements have even been raised. The Minister, Mr Michel, was perhaps rather hasty in announcing it, but I believe that it is better to be hasty with regard to our responsibilities than to do nothing. We must be able to take risks.
With regard to the agencies, the truth is that after a Beethovenesque symphony, in the words of my good friend Giuliano Amato, we have come up against a complete cacophony; and there is another issue on which I agree with him, and that is that we cannot say that the future is going to be wonderful, when as soon as we stop discussing the future and deal with current issues, we end up in a catfight. That is not acceptable and I must point out that Parliament, in the Whitehead report, withdrew its amendments because we were told that the problem was going to be resolved at Laeken, and it has not been resolved.
And I take good note of what was said by a liberal President-in-Office of the Council with regard to the Barcelona Summit: social cohesion, the defence of the European social model, the capacity for adaptation and dialogue with social partners; I believe that that defines the route we must take."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples